Re: old news - but not here

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 9/12/07, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> wrote:

> > Iran's "public nudity" laws only restrict women. And "public nudity"
>
> Same in America. Men can go bare-chested, women can't.

That's a ridiculous comparison. If they banned men from showing their
bare chest, who cares? This is the face we're talking about, your
ability to be human.

Makes sense though, its probably easier to stone a person to death
when you've never seen, and can't see, their face.

> > is a stretch. I think you find it hard to defend Iran on this... :)
>
> Actually, I'm not defending Iran. I think that all religion-based public
> morality systems are suspect, and many of them are awful.

I agree, completely. It should be, as it is here in the states, based
on the community's standards. Those standards may come from the
individuals morality - which is naturally based on their upbringing
and religious beliefs (or spiritual beliefs) - but its the people
deciding, not the government.

> There you go again. You're assuming that democracy and free elections is
> the best possible system, whereas some folks think that submission to
> God's Laws is the best possible system.

There's no question that democracy is a horrible and corrupt form of
government, so no, I'm not assuming that at all. I'm partial to
constitutional republics though and have no doubt that it would work
no matter where it was tried. The decentralization of the government
allows individual communities to govern themselves and the federal
government is simply their to protect the interests of the citizens of
those various communities.

Besides, it seems obvious that what the individual Iranians want is
NOT the same as what their dictators want.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.